All of this data — and its conformance with predictions from computer - generated models — provide
key evidence of climate change.
Not exact matches
Tell me, too, how someone who sees things as you do — all built into Bayesianism; no need to address whether the problem is different priors or different sources
of information relevant to truth - seeking likelihood ratios vs. a form
of biased perception that opportunisitcally bends whatever
evidence is presented to fit a preconception; no need apparently either for empirical study on any
of this — can straighten out someone who says the
key to dispelling public conflict over
climate change is just to disseminate study findings on scientific consensus.
«But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8
of the report — the
key chapter setting out the scientific
evidence for and against a human influence over the
climate — were
changed or deleted after the scientist charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...» — Dr. Frederick Seitz commenting on the IPCC Second Assessment Report, The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996
This means that only two emission targets — the peak rate and cumulative carbon emissions — are needed to constrain two
key indicators
of CO2 - induced
climate change (peak warming and peak warming rate), as
evidenced by the maximum - likelihood estimation method used above.
None
of this should come as a surprise: The paper seemed to undermine a
key piece
of evidence suggesting that we can actually see and measure the consequences
of human - induced
climate change.
The high - profile publication
of the data led to the controversial «hockey stick» being used as a
key piece
of supporting
evidence in the third assessment report by the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.
Guidance developed by Moss and Schneider (2000) for the IPCC on dealing with uncertainty describes two
key attributes that they argue are important in any judgment about
climate change: the amount
of evidence available to support the judgment being made and the degree
of consensus within the scientific community about that judgment.